Yosemite National Park has gorgeous vistas; the largest waterfall in North America; and landmark destinations known for decades as the Ahwahnee Hotel, Wawona Hotel, Curry Village, Yosemite Lodge at the Falls, and the Badger Pass Ski Area. Due to a dispute over the value of trademarks, on March 1, 2016, those landmarks were renamed the Majestic Yosemite Hotel, Big Trees Lodge, Half Dome Village, Yosemite Valley Lodge, and Yosemite Ski and Snowboard Area, respectively.
In June 2015, Yosemite Hospitality LLC (subsidiary of Aramark) was selected over the incumbent Delaware North Company Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. (DNCP) as the new concessioner for the park. During the bidding process, DNCP informed the National Park Service (NPS) the previous 1993 contract required any successor to purchase DNCP’s intellectual property in Yosemite, should DNCP not be chosen to renew. DNCP claims its intellectual property includes 32 trademarks (including the five names listed above), Internet domain names, and other intangible assets, valuing it at over $51 million. NPS disagrees, believing the value of the intellectual property to be approximately $3.5 million.
DNCP’s trademarks do not give the corporation complete ownership of the location names (and the name “Yosemite National Park”), but only ownership of the location names and park name when used for park merchandise such as mugs, T-shirts, and other tourist ware. According to DNCP’s Dan Jensen, the company is “not threatening to keep the names, but [is] entitled to fair value.” Despite this limited scope of ownership, NPS decided to remove all references to the contested location names in the park on March 1, 2016 to prevent interference during the changeover of concessionaires. The signs are largely temporary in nature – except for the Ahwahnee Hotel sign, which was stolen only days before the name change – likely in anticipation of the names being reinstated. Merchandise using the contested trademarks has also been pulled from shelves and replaced with items bearing the new location names and “Yosemite” instead of “Yosemite National Park” (though the park name has not been changed). NPS claims the switch-over has cost approximately $1.7 million– DNCP claims this action to have been unnecessary, as it was willing to license the use of the trademarks to the NPS for free for the duration of the upcoming battle.
DNCP has filed a suit requesting the US Court of Federal Claims enforce the contract with the NPS, but the court has not yet set a date for hearing the suit. In the interim, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has set a trial schedule that extends into 2017. The USPTO has also suggested arbitration or mediation of the dispute, but the legal battle currently appears inevitable with the record containing an unwillingness to negotiate the value of the intellectual property.
In a Petition for Cancellation, the NPS has asked the USPTO to cancel the trademarks awarded to DNCP, claiming improper obtainment of the marks, lack of a plan to use the marks following the non-renewal of the contract, and falsely suggesting a connection to Yosemite National Park. DNCP counters that it obtained the marks fairly, with the 1993 contract being vague about ownership and noting that the marks were officially granted by the USPTO.
No doubt the NPS will include clauses in future contracts to better define what ownership in “park property” may be obtained by contractors (if any). However, consider the possibility of a “public good” designation for names of national landmarks and monuments, perhaps making the clauses unnecessary. Would determining what constitutes a “public good” in this context be too difficult or ultimately too overbroad in its scope? Or could a line between (1) what belongs to the public and (2) what could be owned by those who work on public land be sufficiently determined? Further, if what designates a “public good” in this context could be determined, what is the likelihood the designation will be abused by the government? This is ultimately a question for the USPTO, who is charged with “advis[ing] Federal departments and agencies on matters of intellectual property policy in the United States…” under 35 U.S.C. §2(b)(9). Public opinion, at least, seems to favor the idea of a creating a public good designation for national parks and monuments, likely believing the designation would prevent similar issues with other landmarks in the future.
